- 11,790
- Marin County
Political Correctness
- Thread starter lbsf1
- 2,919 comments
- 170,402 views
Danoff
Premium
- 33,963
- Mile High City
I learned about the civil war first in American history class (7th grade) in Texas. I remember asking the teacher which side won, so my folks hadn't exactly done the job prior. Public school was full of useless info like memorizing dates, specific battles, memorizing the Gettysburg Address (like that would automatically mean understanding it). I definitely learned that there were two sides to the fight, and they didn't agree on what the fight was about. I learned that the North was fighting over slavery (which isn't quite accurate) and that the south was fighting for their rights and "way of life", which happened to include slavery. I knew that it was a war over slavery ultimately, but I thought that the slavery argument was mostly supplied by the North, whereas the South was feeling that their whole society was being attacked. That the North was trying to ruin their economy, and force the southern states against something they felt the states had a right to do. My parents, who had not even bothered to mention it up to that point, continued to not mention it.
I took American history again in college (Texas). We were presented with a more complete picture of the civil war, but one which included all of the typical southern arguments (mostly repeated after the war) for why the civil war occurred. States rights, the uneven balance in voting power between slave states and free states. The threatening of the way of life of the south. I don't remember seeing any of the actual quotes from southern leaders and officials who never mentioned "way of life" and instead mentioned slavery.
When I met my wife I got re-educated by her (racist) parents on what the civil war was really about, which was that the North wanted a strong federal government that could impose its will on the south, and erode the rights that were reserved for the states. Lincoln was essentially cast as a bloodthirsty tyrant, who was bent on attacking a peaceful southern people who simply wanted to be left alone and not have their property (slaves) seized. Destruction of slavery would destroy the southern economy, and leave everyone starving and destitute (white and black people alike). It had nothing to do with slavery, they were trying to end slavery on their own. It had everything to do with freedom from tyranny.
I didn't exactly accept that re-education uncritically. But I did find it intriguing. I think when I heard it it gelled with an intuition that things are never quite as simple as they seem. And so this nuanced argument made a lot of sense, and it had a truthy feel to it. Maybe the south had a more intellectual claim than I had been led to believe... That was basically the state of things prior to my own investigation, which led to that quote and others.
I really wish that my college history class hadn't been quite so even handed with the presentation of it. We should have been hit over the head a little more with actual racist quotes from actual leaders of the time. Instead I think that course really enjoyed delving into the little niches of arguments. It was like they were prepared for everyone to come in demonizing the south and wanted to let you know that they were real people with real motives. I think they wanted to leave the students with the sense that it was a deep tragedy, with respect for both sides. And I get that, but not at the expense of brutal truths, which is what I think happened.
This is not to say that my college course shied away from the details and horrors of slavery and the battles of the civil war. Some brutal truths were definitely revealed. But I do not recall the motivations being so clearly pinpointed. In fact, what I remember is that the south felt like they had the better cause. I was taught that the southern people were fighting for prosperity, for independence, for freedom, for their homes. And that might have been true at the soldier level. But the confederacy was motivated by slavery.
Maybe I was a bad student. I didn't like non-engineering courses.
- 29,640
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Thanks for an interesting post. I suppose this is a possible danger of uncritically presenting both sides without editorialising.
Yes, there may be affable, charming and personable people on "the other side" but that doesn't change anything if what they were fighting for was evil and wrong. To use that hot potato, there are fine people on both sides.
I'm sure lots of gangsters and hitmen are quite generous to their friends and family with their blood money...
- 11,790
- Marin County
There is also a perpetual southern persecution sentiment I think (half my family is long-established southern "aristocracy" from Baton Rouge - the type that talk like Jeff Sessions) where its commonly conveyed that the North brutally ransacked the south...I'm sure there is some truth to it. It was a war after all. To this day, a typical southern treats northerners, as a group, with deep suspicion if not outright loathing. This song (which I like) kind of alludes to this sentiment.
I base the above on my experience of being from the north, and then moving to the south, and having family on both sides (two of my great grandfathers apparently fought at Gettysburg [or maybe Vicksburg?] on opposite sides) of the equation.
I'll never forget going on a trip with one of my good friends in Texas and his family. His Mom (really nice, but not real bright...) saw a confederate flag and asked out loud which side "we were on". Her husband (really nice guy...means well...perhaps a bit uninformed) replied "Sue [made up name], we were the rebels!" in a kind of exasperated tone.
I base the above on my experience of being from the north, and then moving to the south, and having family on both sides (two of my great grandfathers apparently fought at Gettysburg [or maybe Vicksburg?] on opposite sides) of the equation.
I'll never forget going on a trip with one of my good friends in Texas and his family. His Mom (really nice, but not real bright...) saw a confederate flag and asked out loud which side "we were on". Her husband (really nice guy...means well...perhaps a bit uninformed) replied "Sue [made up name], we were the rebels!" in a kind of exasperated tone.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,051
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I like how, after his side had lost the war and slavery had been abolished, Stephens tried to argue that he had been somehow been misquoted despite several people reporting on his speech at the time in a room full of witnesses. Perhaps he should have gone with the sarcasm excuse instead.
- 86,689
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I don't like rugby, but...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53096584
Firstly, I'd question who doesn't know that the song - written by a Choctaw freedman (rather than "a black slave", as the BBC says) - is an African American folk/spiritual. Then I'd wonder how 80,000 people singing a song so widely used during the 1960s civil rights movement, particularly with regards to black rights, is a bad thing.
But last of all I'd casually drop in for consideration the fact that the actual Nazis banned the song (and other examples of "negermusik" - negro music). There surely comes a point when you're advocating for, or considering repeating, things that the Nazis did that you realise you're actually just a fascist?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53096584
Firstly, I'd question who doesn't know that the song - written by a Choctaw freedman (rather than "a black slave", as the BBC says) - is an African American folk/spiritual. Then I'd wonder how 80,000 people singing a song so widely used during the 1960s civil rights movement, particularly with regards to black rights, is a bad thing.
But last of all I'd casually drop in for consideration the fact that the actual Nazis banned the song (and other examples of "negermusik" - negro music). There surely comes a point when you're advocating for, or considering repeating, things that the Nazis did that you realise you're actually just a fascist?
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
... until the Nazis came along & said "hold my beer".
Apropos the American Civil War, my first exposure to it was through series of bubblegum cards produced in 1962 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the start of the war & marketed to kids. They were sold in the UK from 1965 & I remember avidly collecting them. Looking at the reproductions now, with their gratuitously gory depictions of battle, I've got to say that violent video games have got nothing on these. I remember the images vividly - the look of them, the feel of them & the smell of them. The one that sticks out in my memory was "Painful Death".
https://sixtiescity.net/Lifestyle/civilwarcards.htm
Any of you youngsters come across these in more recent times?
Last edited:
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
Yeah. Honestly, I have no idea how these got past my parents. Perhaps we concealed them from them - I don't remember. In deference to the AUP I have removed the Jpeg of "Painful Death". Those wishing to peruse the collection (& I know you will) can click on the link. The Civil War really was a remarkable conflict in so many ways. The brutality of it, the scale of casualties, the stoic heroism of many of the participants, the stupidity of the premise & the enduring legacy for American society & politics.
Last edited:
- 2,909
- United Kingdom
Live action Aladdin has a warning on Sky saying it:
"has outdated attitudes, languages and cultural depictions which may cause offence today"
....The live action Aladdin was released in 2019.
"has outdated attitudes, languages and cultural depictions which may cause offence today"
....The live action Aladdin was released in 2019.
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
That suggests recent progress. The current protests will have been a factor.
- 11,790
- Marin County
Want to stake a position here?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
You've made two mistakes. The first is hoping that The Daily Mail is suddenly a good source to begin any sensible debate, the second was not noticing that your article says Aladdin 2019 had the warning applied mistakenly and that it was removed.
Oopsie.
- 2,909
- United Kingdom
They updated the article after I posted if you check the timestamp at the top.
I'll be honest and say I can't remember if the sentence saying it was a mistake was there when I posted but when I checked twitter and there was definitely no mention that it was removed by Sky in the threads I read.
EDIT: On another note, can we all celebrate that hateful witch Katie Hopkins being banned from Twitter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/technology-53111295
And if you haven't seen the video of her receiving her "campaign to unify the nation trophy" there's no better time to give it a view.
Last edited:
- 2,215
- Isle of Wight, UK
English Rugby fan here - I knew Swing Low as the England Rugby song long before I ever learned where it came from. I've been singing it along with English rugby fans of every colour and creed for as long as I can remember.
This isn't the first time the song has been the target of censorship. I remember people kicking up a fuss over it during the (never forget) 03 World Cup. My dad always explained it off pretty simply - the song isn't racist, it just comes from a time when the kind of people who wrote and sang it didn't have the kind of freedoms we do now.
If you ask a rugby fan, black or white, they'll tell you the song signifies racial togetherness, and lacks any racist undertones. It's something we sing as England supporters, and in those moments that is what we are above all else.
I think it's a beautiful sign of the multicultural nation we are, that a hundred thousand burly white blokes will thrust their pints up in the air and sing this song, whatever connotations it has.
The kinds of people that want it banned, don't understand the inherent power of unification such a thing has. They see it only as a BLACK song being sung by WHITE people (regardless of whether there are black rugby fans or, god forbid, black players on the England team, there are plenty of both) and that's WRONG. They also certainly aren't rugby fans, 99 times out of a hundred.
The Rugby world will, I hope, do what it has done for decades over this issue. Ignore the fuss, confident in the fact they're not racists.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
This. And, as I also keep saying about the removal of statues, it doesn't erase the history. Aunt Jemima is such a well-known character and trope in the history of black protest that the removal of the brand from Quaker's range just becomes another part of a well-known history, not the end of it.
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
We're moving into uncharted territory here:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/22/us/new-york-theodore-roosevelt-statue-removal-trnd/index.html
https://www.opindia.com/2020/06/uk-...supporters-hold-protest-against-the-decision/
There's no doubt that the Roosevelt statute implies the subjugation of the North American First Nations & African Americans. There's no doubt that Ghandi held racist views. I venture to suggest that almost EVERY public statue/monument in the world, going back centuries, has some "politically incorrect" implications. They nearly always celebrate some aspect of nationalist, imperialist, militarist, religious, cultural, ethnic or racial triumphalism. Racism was baked into the culture of every western nation on the planet & I'm pretty sure - every other nation. Is the next step to tear down the monuments to Jefferson & Lincoln because they held racist views? Where does it end?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/22/us/new-york-theodore-roosevelt-statue-removal-trnd/index.html
https://www.opindia.com/2020/06/uk-...supporters-hold-protest-against-the-decision/
There's no doubt that the Roosevelt statute implies the subjugation of the North American First Nations & African Americans. There's no doubt that Ghandi held racist views. I venture to suggest that almost EVERY public statue/monument in the world, going back centuries, has some "politically incorrect" implications. They nearly always celebrate some aspect of nationalist, imperialist, militarist, religious, cultural, ethnic or racial triumphalism. Racism was baked into the culture of every western nation on the planet & I'm pretty sure - every other nation. Is the next step to tear down the monuments to Jefferson & Lincoln because they held racist views? Where does it end?
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,051
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
They'll have a hard job scouring down Mount Rushmore.
These pasts that you call politically incorrect shouldn't stay in the closet. Surely they should be openly discussed in the light of day. I'd rather they added plaques to the statues warning of outdated cultural depictions. The righties seem to complain just as hard when this happens to their favourite cartoons. But the important thing should be that history should be taught correctly, my ironic Oscar Wilde signature notwithstanding.
Personally I hope that if statues are to be removed then this happens after some kind of consultation with the community involved.
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
I'm down with the critical, postmodern re-evaluation of history ... but I'm not really talking about the issues involved, just the physical art/architecture. Everywhere around the planet has monuments to questionable events, individuals & ideas. Start with the pyramids & work forward. The monuments & sculpture of classical antiquity that represented a slave culture & a culture of military conquest. The great castles & cathedrals of the Middle Ages that were created by feudal repression & domination by the Church. The masterpieces of the Renaissance & Baroque that glorify & were financed by aristocratic "crime" families & corruption. Where on earth do you draw the line?
I'm familiar with the statue to General Lee in Richmond, VA. It may not be a an extraordinary work of art like Michelangelo's Medici tomb, but by Richmond standards (no offence) it's a major statue & quite splendid. Sure, you can put up a plaque explaining the history & context, but it remains a very powerful symbol of a racist cause. So what do you do?
- 11,790
- Marin County
My stance has always been do like Jean Claude & Christo (see Avatar) and wrap that ****.*
Reichstag:
I, personally, think the statues should remain up - just the fact that they were erected (and the specifics of why) in many cases is of historical importance, and tearing them down is unhelpful ultimately. But that doesn't mean they need to remain in such a venerated state. I like the idea of wrapping them up. It says, "this happened back then, but we know better now. They will remain as a reminder of a troubled past, but we aren't going to celebrate them."
Or at least that's how I feel.
*I should mention that their work was not necessarily done to accomplish what I'm suggesting. In fact, I'm not really sure what their meaning was, if they had one.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,963
- Mile High City
I think it might not actually be that difficult. You need to figure out whether the work of art has a history of its own, or a symbol worthy of praise, or is simply borrowing on history to make a horrible statement.
Michelangelo's work is of historical significance because it represented art innovation. A statue of Jefferson Davis did nothing for art. And if it did, great, let's keep it. If the statue is of historical significance for other reasons, such as being erected by the confederacy under some kind of interesting historical circumstances, great, let's keep it. If it was just put up to intimidate and glorify racism, and it represents no real historical or artistic significance, then what the hell are we keeping it around for? It's time for private ownership in that case.
- 86,689
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
A question I've not seen really discussed anywhere is "What is the purpose of a statue anyway?".
Understanding what the point of having a close-to-exact replica of a human in a more robust material than flesh standing on a plinth in a prominent place actually is would surely help with understanding which humans merit that treatment and why.
Understanding what the point of having a close-to-exact replica of a human in a more robust material than flesh standing on a plinth in a prominent place actually is would surely help with understanding which humans merit that treatment and why.
